Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: ofw

  • Seafarer’s Obligation to Comply with His Medical Treatment

    Seachest Associates, through its manning agent, Maunlad Trans, Inc. hired the seafarer as a Galley Steward on-board MV Carnival. Several months into his employment, the seafarer began experiencing seasickness and extreme low back pains. Despite medications administered by the ship’s clinic, the pain persisted and extended down to the seafarer’s left thigh.

    Soon, the seafarer was medically repatriated and arrived in the Philippines on 23 January 2010. He reported to Maunlad Trans, Inc. and was referred to its designated physician. The seafarer underwent physical therapy sessions and was diagnosed with ‘lumbar spondylosis with disc extrusion, L3-L4.’ He was also advised to undergo surgery, spine laminectomy. However, he did not approve of the same and instead underwent physical therapy sessions. According to the seafarer, he refused because the company-designated physician informed him that the surgery will not guarantee a return to his normal condition.

    On 6 May 2010, the seafarer returned for a follow-up, and the report on his condition stated:

    Follow-up case of 28 years old male with Herniated Nucleus
    Pulposus, L3-L4, Left.
    EMG-NCV Study — chronic left L5-S1 radiculopathy
    Not keen on surgery.
    Continue rehabilitation.
    His suggested disability grading is Grade 8 — 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk.
    To come back after 3 weeks.

    On 14 May 2010, the seafarer filed his complaint for total and permanent disability benefits since his condition did not improve for purposes of resuming regular duties as a seafarer. The employers retorted that the company-designated physician assessed the seafarer a disability rating of Grade 8, which had equivalent monetary benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled that the company-designated physician’s Grade 8 disability rating was premature, in that it was made only to comply with the 120-day period as mandated in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. The said Office further ruled that the work-related disability incurred by the seafarer had prevented him from seeking employment. Permanent disability benefits was accordingly awarded in favor of the seafarer.

    The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals added that:

    • the company-designated physician failed to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or disability within the 120/240-day periods provided under the law;
    • the company-designated physician’s last report on the seafarer’s condition which “suggested” a disability grading of “Grade 8 — 2/3 loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk” was not a final or definite assessment of his fitness or disability because the seafarer was still required to return after three weeks for further examination;
    • regardless of the fact that the seafarer was required to return for further examination, the statutory 120/240-day periods would have elapsed without the seafarer being issued either a final and definitive disability assessment or a fit-to-work certification;
    • the seafarer’s condition would not have improved even with the prescribed surgery, which he refused to undergo, because as admitted by the company-designated physician it did not guarantee improvement of seafarer’s condition;
    • the seafarer was unable to resume his regular sea duties, his inability to find work had continued, and he was not re-employed; and
    • with the lapse of the statutory 120/240-day periods without the seafarer’s having gone back to work, he should be deemed totally and permanently disabled.

    Ruling:

    The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and declared that the seafarer was entitled to disability benefits in the amount of US$16,795.00 only, equivalent to Grade 8 disability under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.

    Section 20(D) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract states that “[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.”

    According to the Supreme Court, the seafarer was duty-bound to comply with his medical treatment in order to give the company-designated physician the opportunity to determine his fitness to work or to assess the degree of his disability. His inability to continue his treatment without any valid explanation showed that he neglected such duty to continue his medical treatment.

    In the present case, the seafarer filed his complaint on 14 May 2010 — or just 110 days from his medical repatriation on 23 January 2010 — before the 120/240-day periods allowed under the Labor Code of the Philippines could elapse, and before the company-designated physician could render a definite assessment of his medical condition. According to the Court, the filing of the labor case was premature. By failing to continue with the treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician and instead filing the labor case before the expiration of the 120-day period, the seafarer violated the law and his contract with his employer and was thus guilty of abandoning his treatment.

    With regard to the claim of the seafarer that the surgery was not a guarantee that his condition will return to normal, the Court stated that the same does not entitle him to the indemnity he has sought. The fact remained that he violated his contract and the law. His infraction erased any benefit he may have derived from such argument. Although acknowledging that this was a medical opinion shared by the company-designated physician, the Court stated that it had the discretion to rely on such opinion or discard it altogether.

    The Court added that without the seafarer undergoing the prescribed 120/240-day periods for treatment, his employer was deprived of the opportunity to assist him in finding a cure for his condition and thus minimize any legal and pecuniary liability it may be held answerable for. At the same time, there was no way of assessing the seafarer’s medical condition with finality. Without such assessment, no corresponding indemnity was forthcoming. The seafarer must subject himself to treatment as prescribed by the law and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, for such requirement is patently for his benefit in all respects.

    Further reading:

    • Maunlad Trans, Inc. v. Rodelas, Jr., G.R. No. 225705, April 1, 2019.

    Check Out My Latest YouTube Video

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]

  • Extent of Disability vs. Determination of Fitness for Sea Duty

    If there is a claim for total and permanent disability benefits by a seafarer, the following rules shall govern:

    • The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
    • If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;
    • If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
    • If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    The extent of the disability (whether total or partial) of the seafarer is determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognizes based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages.

    However, the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law.

    Further reading:

    • Intermodal Shipping, Inc. v. Escalona, G.R. No. 243380 April 1, 2019.

  • The Party Who Secures the Opinion of a Third Doctor

    Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, when the seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work should be determined by the company-designated physician.

    However, if the doctor appointed by the seafarer makes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor might be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision would be final and binding on both parties.

    The non-observance of the requirement to have the conflicting assessments determined by a third doctor would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.

    The Supreme Court denied the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits in this case.

    According to the Court, the need for the third doctor’s evaluation of the seafarer arose after his personal doctor declared him unfit for seafaring duties. The seafarer could not initiate his claim for disability solely on the basis of the declaration of his personal doctor. He should have instead set in motion the process of submitting himself to assessment by the third doctor by first serving the notice of his intent to do so on the employer.

    The Court stressed that there was no other way to validate the claim of the seafarer but this. Without the notice of intent to refer the seafarer’s case to the third doctor, the employer could not itself initiate the referral.

    Unless the seafarer served the notice of his intent, he could not then validly insist on an assessment different from that made by the company-designated physician. This outcome, which accorded with the procedure expressly set in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, was unavoidable for him.

    The employer could insist on the disability rating of its company-designated physician even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer signified his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third doctor. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belonged to the employee asking for disability benefits. Said employee must actively or expressly request for it.

    Further reading:

    • Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Alferos, G.R. No. 216795, April 1, 2019.

  • No Basis to Award Salary Equivalent to 3 Months

    In Alster International Shipping Services, Inc v. Acosta,1G.R. No. 242085, January 14, 2019. the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an illegally dismissed migrant worker is entitled to payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract. The Court said:

    With respect to the proper amount of indemnity due him, the provision of law, restricting wages recoverable by illegally dismissed overseas workers to three months only, having been struck down twice for its unconstitutionality, there is no more coherent legal basis for restricting the unpaid salaries award in favor of respondent to an amount equivalent to three months’ worth of work only. Hence, respondent is entitled to the payment of unpaid salaries equivalent to the remaining unexpired portion of his employment contract.

    Further reading:

    • Alster International Shipping Services, Inc v. Acosta, G.R. No. 242085, January 14, 2019.

  • My Reliance on the Disputable Presumption of Work-relatedness is Sufficient

    Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, Ltd., through its local agent Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., hired the seafarer in 2008 to work as a casino attendant. After working with said employer on two occasions in 2008 to 2009, the seafarer re-boarded the M/S Braemer on 1 August 2009 to work as a senior casino attendant.

    In February 2010, the seafarer experienced profuse and consistent bleeding, extreme dizziness, and difficulty in breathing. She went to the ship’s clinic and was given medication. The next day, she experienced severe headache. She again went to the ship’s clinic and was prescribed a different medication. She claims that since her headache worsened after taking the said medication, she stopped taking the same.

    The bleeding of the seafarer intensified. She was later advised by the ship’s physician to rest. However, her condition did not improve, so she was taken to a clinic in Barbados. A transvaginal ultrasound conducted on the seafarer revealed that she had two ovarian cysts. She returned to the ship and was assigned to perform light duties.

    On 20 March 2010, the seafarer was medically repatriated to the Philippines.

    On 22 March 2010, the seafarer was placed under the care of the company-designated physician (an obstetrician-gynecologist). Said physician found that the seafarer had “Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Secondary to an Adenomyosis with Adenomyoma.” The seafarer underwent endometrial dilatation and curettage as part of her treatment.

    The company-designated physician was unable to declare the fitness of the seafarer for work by the end of the 120-day period from medical repatriation on 10 March 2010. However, the said physician was able to declare that the seafarer’s fitness to resume sea duties within the 240-day period from said repatriation.

    On 8 September 2010, the seafarer filed a complaint to claim permanent disability benefits based on the collective bargaining agreement she signed.

    Although the Office of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the seafarer, the Court of Appeals reversed the award. The Court of Appeals found that the seafarer failed to provide substantial evidence to prove her allegation that her illness was work-related. Said court gave greater weight to the findings of the company-designated physician, holding that the latter had acquired detailed knowledge and was familiar with the seafarer’s medical condition.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

    It stated that the seafarer should fulfill the following requisites for a grant of her claim for disability benefits, to wit:

    (1) She suffered an illness;

    (2) She suffered this illness during the term of her employment contract;

    (3) She complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20 (B) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract;1Section 20 (B) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract provides:

    B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

    x x x

    For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

    If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

    Note: The present version of the above provision can be seen in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October 26, 2010), as follows:

    SECTION 20. Compensation and Benefits. —

    A. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness

    x x x

    3. x x x

    For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

    If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

    (4) Her illness is one of the occupational diseases within the Standard Employment Contract,2Please refer to Section 32-A of the 2000 (as well as the 2010) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract or her illness or injury is otherwise work-related;3The 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract defines work-related illness as:

    Definition of Terms:

    x x x

    12. Work-Related Illness — any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.

    Section 20 (B) of the Standard Employment Contract provides:

    B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

    x x x

    4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.

    Note: The present version of the above provision can be seen in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, October 26, 2010), as follows:

    Definition of Terms:

    x x x

    16. Work-Related Illness — any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.

    x x x

    SECTION 20. Compensation and Benefits. —

    A. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness

    x x x

    4. Those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related.     and

    (5) She complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A4Section 32-A of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract provides:

    SECTION 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. — For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

    1. The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein;

    2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;

    3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;

    4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

    Note: The cited provision below also appears in the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.     of the Standard Employment Contract for an occupational disease, or a disputably-presumed work-related disease, to be compensable.

    In the present case, the first four requisites appear to have been met.

    In February 2010, the seafarer experienced bleeding during her employment on board the M/S Braemer. The seafarer was medically repatriated to the Philippines and was able to visit the company-designated physician. Said physician thereafter diagnosed the seafarer as suffering from adenomyoma.

    Although adenomyoma is not included in the list of occupational diseases under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, the said contract, nevertheless, provides that those illnesses not listed therein are disputably presumed as work-related.

    However, it appears that the seafarer was unable to fulfill the fifth requisite.

    The Court clarified that while the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work onboard the vessel and the contracted or aggravated illness. The seafarer cannot argue that he does not have the burden to prove that his illness was work-related because it is disputably presumed by law. The seafarer cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.

    In other words, to be entitled to compensation and benefits under this provision, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled. It must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. According to the Court, concomitant with this presumption is the burden placed upon the seafarer to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused the disease, or at least increased the risk of contracting the same. Only a reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is required to establish compensability of illnesses not included in the list of occupational diseases.

    In the present case, the Court found no substantial evidence establishing the relation between the seafarer’s work and the illness she contracted.

    The Court also noted that there was no showing that the seafarer’s adenomyoma was pre-existing, thus it was not able to determine whether the adenomyoma was aggravated by the nature of her employment.

    The Court acknowledged the seafarer’s arguments that her illness is the result of her “constantly walking upward and downward on board the vessel carrying loads” and that she “acquired her illness on board the employer’s vessel during the term of her employment as a casino attendant.” However, the Court found that the seafarer did not discuss the duties of a casino attendant. She failed to show the causation between walking, carrying heavy loads, and adenomyoma. She merely asserted that since her illness developed while she was on board the vessel, it was work-related.

    The Court accordingly ruled that it had no means to determine whether the illness of the seafarer was work-related or work-aggravated, since the latter did not describe the nature of her employment as a casino attendant.

    In view of the seafarer’s failure to fulfill the requisites of compensability, the Court ruled against the grant of the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.

    Further reading:

    • Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016.

    Check Out My Latest YouTube Video:

    [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]

  • Seafarer’s Work-related Death During Employment

    On 24 April 2002, the seafarer was hired as a messman on board the M/T Umm Al Lulu by the employer, Abu Dhabi National Tanker Company, through its local manning agency, C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. The seafarer and the employer signed a ten-month contract of employment, which was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration on 9 May 2002.

    Before embarkation, the seafarer underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared physically fit to work. He then boarded the M/T Umm Al Lulu on 20 May 2002.

    The seafarer was repatriated in Manila on 16 March 2003. The next day, 17 March 2003, he went to a medical clinic in Kawit, Cavite where he was examined by his personal doctor who then diagnosed him with “Essential Hypertension.” Said doctor advised the seafarer to take the prescribed medication and rest for a week.

    On 19 March 2003, the seafarer died. The certificate of death stated the causes for his death, thus:

    Immediate cause: Irreversible Shock
    Antecedent cause: Acute Myocardial Infarction
    Underlying cause: Hypertensive Heart Disease

    The seafarer’s legal heirs filed a complaint against the employer for the recovery of death compensation benefits and of burial and children’s allowances.

    Employer’s Contentions:

    The employer contended that the seafarer’s death was not compensable based on the following reasons:

    1) The death of the seafarer did not occur during the term of his employment.

    A seafarer’s term of employment commences from his actual departure from the airport or seaport in the point of hire and ceases upon completion of his period of contractual service, signing-off, and arrival at the point of hire.

    The seafarer’s ten-month contract was about to expire on 20 March 2003 when he was safely repatriated without any medical condition a few days earlier, on 16 March 2003, as he was already in a convenient port. In other words, the seafarer finished his employment contract upon signing off from M/T Umm Al Lulu and arriving in Manila, his point of hire, on 16 March 2003.

    Thus, the seafarer’s death on 19 March 2003 could not have been compensable because it happened beyond the term of his contract.

    2) The seafarer’s death was not work-related.

    As a messman, the seafarer’s duties were limited to assisting the chief cook in food preparation. Said duties could not have contributed to his demise or increased the risk of acquiring the illness which caused his death, for there was no showing that the seafarer was subjected to any unusual strain or required to perform any strenuous activity that could have triggered a heart attack.

    3) The seafarer failed to disclose his ailment during his pre-employment medical examination.

    Hypertensive heart disease takes years to develop and most probably the seafarer was already suffering from said disease even before the start of his employment contract. However, the seafarer failed to disclose his ailment during his pre-employment medical examination. This fact barred the seafarer’s heirs from receiving death benefits on the ground of concealment of a pre-existing illness.

    4) The seafarer likewise failed to submit himself to a mandatory post-employment medical examination within three working days from his disembarkation.

    The Court’s Ruling:

    The Supreme Court disagreed with the contentions of the employer and ruled that the seafarer’s heirs were entitled to the benefits they claimed.

    The Court noted the following provisions of Section 20 (A) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, as these were applicable to the case:

    SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. —

    A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR DEATH

    1. In case of death of the seafarer during the term of his contract, the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the Philippine Currency equivalent to the amount of Fifty Thousand US dollars (US$50,000) and an additional amount of Seven Thousand US dollars (US$7,000) to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not exceeding four (4) children, at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment.

    x x x

    4. The other liabilities of the employer when the seafarer dies as a result of injury or illness during the term of employment are as follows:

    a. The employer shall pay the deceased’s beneficiary all outstanding obligations due the seafarer under this Contract.

    b. The employer shall transport the remains and personal effects of the seafarer to the Philippines at employer’s expense except if the death occurred in a port where local government laws or regulations do not permit the transport of such remains. In case death occurs at sea, the disposition of the remains shall be handled or dealt with in accordance with the master’s best judgment. In all cases, the employer/master shall communicate with the manning agency to advise for disposition of seafarer’s remains.

    c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippine currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. (Emphasis supplied.)

    The Court addressed the employer’s contentions, as follows:

    1) Clarification of the phrase “work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment contract”

    The Court found that Section 20 (A) (1) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract covered cases wherein the seafarer’s death occurred “during the term of his contract.” The Court also noted that the same phrase could be found in Section 20 (A) (1) of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, only this more recent version of the provision additionally required that the death be “work-related.”

    The Court acknowledged that although medical repatriation of the seafarer at the point of hire strictly meant the termination of his employment, heirs of a seafarer who has died after his medical repatriation could still recover compensation and benefits.

    Applying the rule on liberal construction, the Court stated that medical repatriation cases should be considered as an exception to Section 20 of the Standard Employment Contract.

    1.1)

    Accordingly, the phrase “work-related death of the seafarer, during the term of his employment contract” under Part A (1) of the Standard Employment Contract should not be strictly and literally construed to mean that the seafarer’s work-related death should have precisely occurred during the term of his employment.

    Rather, it is enough that the seafarer’s work-related injury or illness which eventually causes his death should have occurred during the term of his employment.

    According to the Court, it is by this method of construction that undue prejudice to the seafarer and his heirs may be obviated and the State policy on labor protection be championed. For if the seafarer’s death was brought about (whether fully or partially) by the work he had harbored for his employer’s profit, then it is but proper that his demise be compensated.

    1.2)

    It is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the seafarer or the heirs to benefits provided therefor. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about seafarer’s death.

    1.3)

    Even assuming that the ailment of the seafarer was contracted prior to his employment, this still would not deprive him or his heirs of compensation benefits. For what matters is that the work of the seafarer had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his eventual death.

    1.4)

    Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the seafarer be in perfect health at the time he contracted the disease. A seafarer brings with him possible infirmities in the course of his employment, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of his seafarers, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the proximate cause of the seafarer’s death for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the seafarer is unimportant, and recovery may be had for said death, independently of any pre-existing disease.

    The Court concluded that medical repatriation is an exceptional circumstance and allows the heirs of the seafarer who died after he had been medically repatriated to recover the compensation and benefits provided in Section 20 (A) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract .

    The phrase “death of the seafarer during the term of his contract” in Section 20 (A) (1) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract should not be strictly and literally construed to mean that the seafarer’s death should have occurred during the term of his employment; it is enough that the seafarer’s work-related injury or illness which eventually caused his death occurred during the term of his employment.

    2) Context of the illness that caused the seafarer’s death

    According to the Court, for a seafarer’s death to be compensable under the said contract, the illness leading to the eventual death of the seafarer need not be shown to be work-related in order to be compensable, but must be proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract. Neither is it required that there be proof that the working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease or illness. An injury or accident is said to arise “in the course of employment” when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto.

    The Court ruled in favor of the seafarer’s heirs since the particular circumstances in the present case revealed that the seafarer contracted the illness which eventually caused his death during the term of his contract or in the course of his employment.

    3) Seafarer’s hypertension and/or heart disease easily detected by standard/routine tests

    The Court found that before the seafarer boarded M/T Umm Al Lulu on 20 May 2002, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination and was declared fit to work. In this regard, the Court ruled that the same negated the employer’s claim that the seafarer concealed a pre-existing illness.

    The Court acknowledged its declarations that the pre-employment medical examination could not be relied upon to inform the employer/s of a seafarer’s true state of health, and there were instances when the pre-employment medical examination could not have divulged the seafarer’s illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.

    However, the Court noted that the seafarer’s hypertension and/or heart disease could have been easily detected by standard/routine tests included in the pre-employment medical examination, i.e., blood pressure test, electrocardiogram, chest x-ray, and/or blood chemistry.

    The Court added that even assuming that the ailment of the seafarer was contracted prior to his employment on board the M/T Umm Al Lulu, this could not be a drawback to the compensability of the disease.

    The Court reiterated that it is not required that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant to the benefits provided therefor. It is enough that the employment had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his death.

    Neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the seafarer must have been in perfect condition or health at the time he contracted the disease. Every workingman brings with him to his employment certain infirmities, and while the employer is not the insurer of the health of his seafarers, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the proximate cause of the seafarer’s death for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the seafarer is unimportant and recovery may be had therefor independent of any pre-existing disease.

    4) Post-employment medical examination of the seafarer by a company-designated physician within three days from arrival not a requisite for recovery of compensation and benefits relating to a seafarer’s death

    Finally, the Court ruled that the insistence of the employer on the post-employment medical examination of the seafarer by a company-designated physician within three days from arrival at the point of hire was misplaced.

    Said post-employment medical examination was required under Section 20 (B) (3) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract for compensation and benefits for a seafarer’s injury or illness; it was not a requisite under Section 20 (A) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract for compensation and benefits for a seafarer’s death.

    In addition, Section 20 (B) (3) of the 1996 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract itself allowed as an exception from said requirement a seafarer who is physically incapacitated from complying with the same.

    The Court found that the seafarer in this case was already of poor health and weak physical condition upon his repatriation on 16 March 2003, which necessitated his immediate visit to a nearby clinic the very next day, on 17 March 2003.

    In any event, the seafarer still had until 19 March 2003 to see a company-designated physician but he died on the same day of a cause (“Hypertensive Heart Disease”) directly linked to the illness (“Essential Hypertension”) he developed during his term of employment on M/T Umm Al Lulu and for which he was medically repatriated.

    The Court reiterated the principle that the post-employment medical examination requirement is not absolute and admits of an exception, i.e., when the seaman is physically incapacitated from complying with the requirement.

    For a man who was terminally ill and in need of urgent medical attention, one could not reasonably expect that he would immediately resort to and avail of the required medical examination, assuming that he was still capable of submitting himself to such examination at that time.

    Under the circumstances, the seafarer’s surviving heirs cannot be denied their right to claim benefits under the law.

    Further reading:

    • C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Legal Heirs of Repiso, G.R. No. 190534, February 10, 2016.

  • No Objection to Company-designated Physician’s Assessment

    The seafarer in this case entered into a ten-month employment contract and was engaged to work as an able seaman by his employer, Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., through its agent, Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc., onboard the vessel M/V BBC OHIO. His engagement was also subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and its employees. The seafarer boarded the vessel on 23 November 2009.

    While on duty on 30 December 2009, the seafarer fell from a height of four meters in his work area. The fall affected his side, shoulder, and head. He was brought to a hospital in Huangpu, China, where he was diagnosed with “Left l-4 Verterbra Transverse Bone broken (accident).” He was declared unfit to work for 25 days. On 7 January 2010, he was medically repatriated to the Philippines.

    The seafarer arrived in Manila on 8 January 2010, where he was referred to the company-designated physician for examination and treatment. After undergoing several tests (which included a CT scan, audiometry and MRI, as well as therapy sessions with the company-designated physician that spanned six months) the company-designated physician gave him a combined 36% disability assessment.

    The seafarer did not object to the company-designated physician’s assessment. Yet, he filed a claim for permanent total disability compensation against his employer.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the seafarer was not entitled to permanent total disability compensation.

    The Court noted that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract and the collective bargaining agreement were instruments that governed the seafarer’s employment with the petitioners. According to the Court, these instruments are the law between the parties.

    Under the Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician who not only declares/establishes the fitness to work or the degree of disability of a seafarer who is repatriated for medical reasons, but also determines whether a seafarer needs further medical attention. Thus, under the said contract, the seafarer is required to submit to a post-employment medical examination by the company-designated physician.

    Furthermore, under the collective bargaining agreement, the disability suffered by the Seafarer shall be determined by a doctor appointed mutually by the employer and the union, and the employers shall provide disability compensation to the seafarer in accordance with the compensation scale prescribed therein. The Court found that the company-designated physician based her assessment of the seafarer’s disability on the said compensation scale.

    In the present case, the seafarer was able to submit himself to the care of the company-designated physician upon his medical repatriation. The company-designated physician thereafter gave the seafarer a 36% disability assessment under the compensation schedule prescribed in the collective bargaining agreement.

    The Court noted the seafarer’s own admission that he no longer disputed the findings of the company-designated physician. It was also not shown that the seafarer offered a contrary finding. And although the collective bargaining agreement stated that the seafarer’s disability shall be determined by a doctor mutually appointed by the employer and the union, it was was not established that the parties even resorted to this step.

    The Court ruled that the absence of a disability assessment by a doctor chosen by the parties will not invalidate the company-designated physician’s assessment, not only because the seafarer accepted said physician’s findings, but also because record established that the seafarer refused the employer’s proposal that his medical condition be referred to a mutually appointed doctor for determination.

    According to the Court, a seafarer could not claim full disability benefits on his mere say-so, in complete disregard of the Standard Employment Contract and the collective bargaining agreement.

    The Court thus held that company-designated physician’s assessment should stand.

    Further reading:

    • Marlow Navigation Phils., Inc. v. Cabatay, G.R. No. 212878, February 1, 2016.

  • Seafarer’s Unjustified Refusal to Continue His Medical Treatment

    On 30 September 2008, the respondents hired the seafarer in this case as fitter aboard the vessel Crown Garnet for a period of nine (9) months. He embarked on 4 October 2008.

    The seafarer claimed that in January 2009, he started experiencing neck and lower back pain. He then stated that he signed off from the vessel on 13 July 2009 (although it was not clear in the case whether the same was by way of medical repatriation or of the expiration of his employment contract).

    Upon arrival in the Philippines on 15 July 2009, he was referred to the company-designated physician and was diagnosed with “cervical radiculopathy, thoracic and lumbar spondylosis, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome of the left, and trigger finger, third digit of his right hand.” He underwent carpal tunnel surgery on his left hand, and physical therapy sessions for his cervical and lumbar condition.

    On 23 November 2009, the seafarer filed a complaint for disability benefits against the respondents.

    The Supreme Court denied the seafarer’s disability benefits in this case.

    At the time the complaint for disability benefits was filed, the seafarer had no cause of action.

    The Court found that when the seafarer filed said complaint, he was still under the care of the company-designated physician. He also had not even consulted a personal doctor before he instituted his complaint.

    The company-designated physician even advised the seafarer to seek the opinion of an orthopedic specialist. The seafarer, however, did not heed the advice and proceeded to file his complaint for disability benefits. It was only a day after its filing that the seafarer requested from the company-designated physician the latter’s assessment on his medical condition.

    Since the company-designated physician was yet to issue an assessment on the seafarer’s medical condition, and since the 240-day maximum period for determining the seafarer’s disability or fitness to work had not yet lapsed, the Court accordingly concluded that the seafarer prematurely filed his complaint.

    The seafarer reneged on his duties under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.

    In his report, the company-designated physician stated that while there was a good chance the seafarer will be declared fit to work, this was premised on the completion of his remaining therapy sessions to address the pain in his left hand and back. The seafarer thereafter complained of pain on the neck and additional pain of the lower back which was not originally present at the start of his treatment. Thus, the company-designated physician intended to prolong the seafarer’s treatment. However, the seafarer no longer reported to the clinic of the said physician.

    The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract1Under Section 20 (D) provides that

    “[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.”

    The Court found that the seafarer was aware that he had the duty to undergo medical treatment, physical therapy sessions, including the recommended consultation to an orthopedic specialist, in order to give the company-designated physician the opportunity to determine his fitness to work or to assess the degree of his disability. His inability to continue his treatment without any valid explanation proved that he neglected his corresponding duty to continue his medical treatment. Consequently, the seafarer’s inability to regularly return for his treatment caused the regress of his condition. According to the Court, had the seafarer been cooperative with his treatment and shown interest in improving his condition, it would have been possible for the company-designated physician to declare him fit to work.

    The Court thus declared that the seafarer failed to comply with the terms of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. The absence of a timely assessment was not caused by the company-designated physician, but had resulted from seafarer’s refusal to cooperate and undergo further treatment. Such failure to abide with the procedure under the said contract resulted in his non-entitlement to disability benefits.

    Further reading:

    • Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Quillao, G.R. No. 202885, January 20, 2016.

  • Mere Reliance on a Causality Presumption

    A seafarer was hired as an assistant butcher on a certain cruise ship. On 22 August 2005, he entered into a 12-month contract of employment with the respondent incorporating the Standard Terms and Conditions the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (Standard Employment Contract) as prescribed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Having passed the medical exam and having been declared fit for work, he boarded the said ship on 26 August 2005.

    During his employment, he was confined in a hospital sometime in December 2005 after suffering a month of rectal bleeding and lower abdominal pain. Soon he was medically repatriated, and upon arrival in the Philippines on 24 December 2005, he was immediately confined in a hospital, where he was found to be suffering from stage IV colon cancer. After months of confinement and treatment for his illness, he passed away.

    His widow thereafter filed a Complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for death benefits, and the case went up to the Supreme Court.

    The Court denied her claims. The basis for the denial was the absence of showing that the cause of his death was one of those covered by the POEA Standard Employment Contract, and that the said cause was not work-related. It found that the Standard Employment Contract (under Section 32-A) lists down certain types of illnesses as compensable, but colon cancer is not one of them. And although there exists a disputable presumption of compensability (under Section 20 B (4)) for illnesses not listed therein, the Court ruled that it should be read in relation to said Section 32-A.

    In other words, she cannot simply rely on the disputable presumption provision mentioned in Standard Employment Contract, as she still has to substantiate her claim in order to be entitled to disability compensation.

    The widow, in this case, did not present any proof of a causal connection or at least a work relation between the employment of her husband and his colon cancer. Neither did she mention the risks that could have caused or, at the very least, contributed to the disease her husband had contracted.

    Because of these findings, the claim was not granted.

    Take away:

    “Claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that there is probably a relation between the illness and the work. Probability, and not mere possibility, is required; otherwise, the resulting conclusion would proceed from deficient proofs.”

    Further reading:

    • Joraina Dragon Talosig v. United Philippine Lines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 198388, July 28, 2014.